New HarperPAC

[Argus]

These ads are warped and I hope and suspect they will come back and smack Harper right in the kisser which is exactly what he deserves. The desperation hes in is clearly evidenced by this crap.

I'm confused by your confusing statement. We're talking about the lies in the NDP PAC ads and you say they're warped and hope they will smack Harper in the kisser?

[Argus]

Immigrants can bring in their dependant children, no problem there, we are talking about bringing in elderly dependant relatives. As far as I know there are no specifics in their plans, just promises to fast track etc.

Skilled workers get to bring their families in already. That has nothing to do with 'family class' immigration. The latter is the sponsoring of brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts, grandparents, cousins, etc. These people are not assessed as to their education, language or job skills, and of course, come mainly from third world countries. I'm still waiting for some NDP supporter to tell me how making this the main priority for our immigration is not going to harm Canada by bringing in masses of new welfare recipients.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm confused by your confusing statement. We're talking about the lies in the NDP PAC ads and you say they're warped and hope they will smack Harper in the kisser?

Apparently the thread is about the Harper Pac.

[Argus]

Family class immigration does not cut into economic class immigration. It's a separate class and each are given a quota that should be met. It's also important to know that those who are sponsoring parents must meet a certain income threshold for the previous 3 years, which disqualifies many people. These rules have been in place for many years under different governments.

Yes, but 'family class' used to be the major source of immigrants. The Conserviatves, responding to the deteriorating economic success of immigrants, lowered the number of Family Class substantially, and prioritized recruitment of those with job skills instead. The NDP policy is to reverse that, and make family class our priority once again.

[Argus]

Apparently the thread is about the Harper Pac.

And as per any normal conversation, it's thus also about the PAC launched by the Liberals and NDP. After all that PAC was the reason why we're now starting to see conservative PACs doing the same sorts of things. I note you've had no complaints about the Lib/Ndp pac and it's dishonest attack ads.

[Big Guy]

To Keepitsimple - Your explanation for using terrorist propaganda was - "it's a commentary that provides the emotional context." I hope I have not taken that out of context.

I suggest that is how terrorist propaganda works - it provides a commentary that provided and instils fear and terror - that is how it is supposed to work. Why would a war room use that kind of footage?

I have no interest getting involved in a my guy is better than your guy fiasco. I have no "guy". I am upset when campaigns start to stretch the envelope of decency be it any one of the federal parties. I would have the same reaction if a pro-NDP ad had an anti Canadian involvement with ISIS dialogue while running pictures of Canadian military funerals driving down highway 401 (Heroes Highway) or the Liberals running video of Del Mastro in shackles being loaded into a police van.

Campaigns are getting uglier and uglier and I intend to comment on anything that I feel crosses the line of decency.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, but 'family class' used to be the major source of immigrants. The Conserviatves, responding to the deteriorating economic success of immigrants, lowered the number of Family Class substantially, and prioritized recruitment of those with job skills instead. The NDP policy is to reverse that, and make family class our priority once again.

Actually, overall, immigrants to Canada ted to be better educated than Canadians. They are typically under employed because having their credentials accepted is such a slow process. One thing the NDP has committed to is to speed that up. That will allow them to upgrade their employment, and pay more taxes to keep healthcare funded before we all get too old and drain it dry.

[On Guard for Thee]

And as per any normal conversation, it's thus also about the PAC launched by the Liberals and NDP. After all that PAC was the reason why we're now starting to see conservative PACs doing the same sorts of things. I note you've had no complaints about the Lib/Ndp pac and it's dishonest attack ads.

What dishonest ads are those...

[scribblet]

In another post, you said "low-information voters" and you have just displayed how you have low information on immigration.

Family class immigration does not cut into economic class immigration. It's a separate class and each are given a quota that should be met. It's also important to know that those who are sponsoring parents must meet a certain income threshold for the previous 3 years, which disqualifies many people. These rules have been in place for many years under different governments.

I never said it cut into economic class immigration, I said " If family reunification trumps qualifications and skills then it obviously will lead to fewer skilled people and more unqualified less meritorious unskilled people coming in, which would be detrimental to Canada’s economy (and health care )" I'm fully aware of sponsorship etc. what I'm not fully aware of is exactly what the opposition parties would do to change that other than fast track and raise quotas.

[scribblet]

Skilled workers get to bring their families in already. That has nothing to do with 'family class' immigration. The latter is the sponsoring of brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts, grandparents, cousins, etc. These people are not assessed as to their education, language or job skills, and of course, come mainly from third world countries. I'm still waiting for some NDP supporter to tell me how making this the main priority for our immigration is not going to harm Canada by bringing in masses of new welfare recipients.

I'm talking about the family reunification program which I believe is the same as family class, although there is a Family Class sponsorship category in the provinces also. I too wonder how prioritizing elderly relatives (not dependant children) will help Canada. I remember the flap when a Liberal MP wanted to lower the requirement for collecting OAS, the spectre of that issue coming up again is always a possibility.

What dishonest ads are those...

The dishonest ad from EngageCanada... http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/engage-canada-vs-evidence-jenni-byrne-and-the-conservatives/

Edited June 27, 2015 by scribblet

[marcus]

I never said it cut into economic class immigration, I said " If family reunification trumps qualifications and skills then it obviously will lead to fewer skilled people and more unqualified less meritorious unskilled people coming in, which would be detrimental to Canada’s economy (and health care )" I'm fully aware of sponsorship etc. what I'm not fully aware of is exactly what the opposition parties would do to change that other than fast track and raise quotas.

They will raise the quota for family sponsorship. From 5000 to a higher number. Increasing that to, let's say, 20,000 is barely a dent into healthcare (which is what people complain about). The positive is that they allow the second parent to go to work either full-time or part time, as more and more families are unable to live off of 1 income alone. The second working parent ends up contributing to the work force and paying more taxes. It's also important to note that grandparents have a better effect on children than most nanny's (who end up being immigrants anyway).

[marcus]

Skilled workers get to bring their families in already. That has nothing to do with 'family class' immigration. The latter is the sponsoring of brothers, sisters, uncles and aunts, grandparents, cousins, etc.

The federal family class program is only for parents and grandparents. Not for brothers/sisters/uncles/aunts/etc. This has been the case for multiple governments. As far as I have seen, the NDP or Liberals don't plan to bring sibling and family (outside of parents/grandparents) sponsorship into the program.

There are some provinces who have had small family reunification programs, but for those, the family member must meet requirements such as having a certain level of English and skill level in order to be eligible.

[scribblet]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/evaluation/frp/index.asp family reunification and family class appear to be the same.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/

If you are a citizen or permanent resident of Canada and at least 18 years old, you can sponsor certain relatives to come to Canada under the Family Class. These can be:

• your spouse,
• your conjugal or common-law partner,
• your dependent child (this includes an adopted child) or
• other eligible relatives.

If your family member can become a permanent resident, they can live, study and work in Canada.

[marcus]

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/evaluation/frp/index.asp family reunification and family class appear to be the same.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/

If you are a citizen or permanent resident of Canada and at least 18 years old, you can sponsor certain relatives to come to Canada under the Family Class. These can be:

• your spouse,
• your conjugal or common-law partner,
• your dependent child (this includes an adopted child) or
• other eligible relatives.

If your family member can become a permanent resident, they can live, study and work in Canada.

Notice that there are no siblings, uncles, cousins, etc. as mentioned by Argus. There are some very very special cases, where you can perhaps sponsor a sibling, but that rarely ever happens or is allowed. The situation of the sibling would have to be very unique; for example, they have no family members in the country they're from but have several family members in Canada. Those applications would have to go through Humanitarian and Compassion application process, which rarely ever receives a positive result.

There are federal immigration programs and provincial immigration programs. Some provinces have had (many have froze them or shut them down) and I think one or two still have (Manitoba and/or NB) a family reunification program which I discussed in my earlier post.

Edited June 27, 2015 by marcus

[Keepitsimple]

To Keepitsimple - Your explanation for using terrorist propaganda was - "it's a commentary that provides the emotional context." I hope I have not taken that out of context.

I suggest that is how terrorist propaganda works - it provides a commentary that provided and instils fear and terror - that is how it is supposed to work. Why would a war room use that kind of footage?

You've shown your stripes consistently - you don't like Harper - I get that......but it's not about "my guy" or "your guy"..... I took issue with your saying that they were using propaganda images that even the networks did not use. Hogwash. Here's what I said.....

Your point is an inch short of a complete lie. You made it seem like the Conservative ad was replaying the disgusting ISIS videos. They are not. They use single frame pictures that do not show the actual violence - it's the commentary that provides the emotional context. As for your claim that the networks don't show these images - here's a link to a CBC news report - I'm sure there are plenty more out there. How about starting a topic that denounces the CBC for pandering to the ISIS propaganda? As for Mr. Trudeau? The vast majority of Canadians don't agree with him - and this is a pretty effective way to point that out.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2651275778/

[scribblet]

Notice that there are no siblings, uncles, cousins, etc. as mentioned by Argus. There are some very very special cases, where you can perhaps sponsor a sibling, but that rarely ever happens or is allowed. The situation of the sibling would have to be very unique; for example, they have no family members in the country they're from but have several family members in Canada. Those applications would have to go through Humanitarian and Compassion application process, which rarely ever receives a positive result. ..............

Other eligible relatives....

[marcus]

Other eligible relatives....

I explained "other eligible relatives" in my post.

There are some very very special cases, where you can sponsor a sibling, but that rarely ever happens or is allowed. The situation of the sibling would have to be very unique; for example, they have no family members in the country they're from but have several family members in Canada. Those applications would have to go through Humanitarian and Compassion application process, which rarely ever receives a positive result.

[Big Guy]

To Keepitsimple - you referred to the ads as "They use single frame pictures that do not show the violence.". The three pictures I saw on the ad were about 3 guys in jump suits in a cage being lowered into the water to drown. The caption refers to "terrorist drowning people".

The second is a picture of about 10 guys in jump suits with their hands behind heir backs, all joined with a rope around each neck and a terrorist bending over. The caption refers to cutting their heads off. The third is a terrorist with a shoulder bazooka targeting a car.

If you do not consider these to show violence then I suggest you sit back and review just how your vision is being clouded by your partisanship.

For the record, I do like Elizabeth May - she is the only one who actually reads the legislation. I do not like Harper, I do not like Trudeau and I do not like Mulcair. If I had my way the leaders of the Parties would be ; Conservative - James Rajotte (not running again unfortunately), Liberal - Roger Cuzner, NDP - Megan Leslie.

I do not have a "guy" and am trying to maintain some objectivity in the coming race.

[Argus]

Actually, overall, immigrants to Canada ted to be better educated than Canadians.

Not especially true. They have degrees, some of them, but often from non-recognized institutions. Why are they not recognized? Because cheating is widespread in many countries, as is bribery, as is a unacceptably low level of quality in the education provided. Further, a degree is often of little value in Canada without higher level language skills to communicate with people here. Taxi driver English doesn't cut it on a professional level. And while more immigrants than Canadians have a post secondary education more immigrants than Canadians have less than a high school education, and less than a grade eight education too.

They are typically under employed because having their credentials accepted is such a slow process.

And because they don't speak the language, and because their resume's lack the requisite experience, or cannot be verified. Or because they flat out don't have the comparable skills.

One thing the NDP has committed to is to speed that up.

Yes, I noticed that commitment. Let's all forget about verifying someone's actual experience and credentials and just declare he's qualified, even if he's not. I mean, what could go wrong with that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9771022/Revealed-3-in-4-of-Britains-danger-doctors-are-trained-abroad.html

[Argus]

What dishonest ads are those...

The ones which say Harper has cut 36 billion from health care and saying inequality has skyrocketed under Harper.

[On Guard for Thee]

The ones which say Harper has cut 36 billion from health care and saying inequality has skyrocketed under Harper.

You are not paying attention if you think anyone said Harper has cut 36 billion already. The cuts don't kick in until 2016-17. And hopefully he will be gone and that will get repealed.

[Shady]

You are not paying attention if you think anyone said Harper has cut 36 billion already. The cuts don't kick in until 2016-17. And hopefully he will be gone and that will get repealed.

The federal government will be spending more on healthcare in 2016-2017 than it is now. There are no cuts.

[Argus]

They will raise the quota for family sponsorship. From 5000 to a higher number. Increasing that to, let's say, 20,000

Nope. Nope. They say they will increase immigration to 350,000 people per year. And a direct quote is:

Promoting the reunification of families as the main priority of the Canadian immigration policy

That in no way suggests a moderate increase to family reunification. That instead suggest they will raise it to something closer to 200,000. Else how can it be the "Main priority" of Canada's immigration policy?

is barely a dent into healthcare (which is what people complain about). The positive is that they allow the second parent to go to work either full-time or part time, as more and more families are unable to live off of 1 income alone. The second working parent ends up contributing to the work force and paying more taxes. It's also important to note that grandparents have a better effect on children than most nanny's (who end up being immigrants anyway).

I'm a little confused about the point you're trying to make here. The noted fact you seem to be missing is that the vast number of newcomers are from the third world. Even where they arrive under the skills program that is virtually always the husband who qualifies. Women in the third world are generally much less likely to have any kind of western job skills than men. In many of the countries where we recruit women do not typically even work outside the home. They are far more likely to be illiterate in their own language, much less ours. So I fail to see how bringing grandpa and grandma over are going to help mom get a job.

What it will do is make us pay for grandpa and grandma's health care, and as they are already seniors chances are that will amount to a big fat pile of cash.

Furthermore, the NDP have also specifically stated their definition of 'family' will be wide ranging and will allow people to bring in relatives who do not presently qualify under the terms of 'family class', a second cousin, say. And if that second cousin is an illiterate goat herder, well, then we get to pay for his upkeep (including housing, clothes, food, heat, hydro, etc., and health care) for the next forty or fifty years or so.

[Argus]

You are not paying attention if you think anyone said Harper has cut 36 billion already. The cuts don't kick in until 2016-17. And hopefully he will be gone and that will get repealed.

Seems pretty clear to me. Furthermore, it's a lie to say Harper cut health care. There was a program which included yearly increases to health care transfers. That program was set to expire and did expire. Nevertheless, health care increases will continue, just not be the same amount. It's not like he actually slashed health care funding like Jean Chretien and Paul Martin did.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/06/26/engage-canada-releases-second-anti-harper-ad-this-time-on-health-care-cuts/

Edited June 27, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

The federal government will be spending more on healthcare in 2016-2017 than it is now. There are no cuts.

Either you haven't actually read the changes that will come into effect, or your math skills are bad.